Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standon Preceptory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standon Preceptory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 02:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 02:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet Wikipedia standards, and is only a sentence long too.TH1980 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added coverage of it, both sources are tertiary sources so it should pass GNG. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Standon, Hertfordshire. There's almost no info other than it existed. Not enough for a separate article as it stands. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some basic historical information and references and I think the article satisfies GNG. I'm not totally opposed to merging to Standon, Hertfordshire if people think the additional context would benefit the reader, but that is a conversation that can happen outside of AfD. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the AFD is closed as keep, then there will have to be consensus to merge, it can't just be boldly done if this is closed as "keep". I agree maybe it should be merged, I was tempted to say that but because of the tertiary sources I though it might be OK as a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on all points mentioned. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding it, if the AFD is closed as "no consensus" or something like keep but a merge can be done, then it could still probably be boldly merged. I would be happy with a close of "keep" or "merge", or similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure this is the most reliable source, but here is a paper about it: Brown, J. A. The Standon Hospice, Transactions of the East Hertfordshire Archaeological Society, Volume 1, East Hertfordshire Archaeological Society Stephen Austin & Sons, 1901 p289-291. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enabled by expansion and sourcing of the article during AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per expanded sourcing currently in article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a preceptor of the Hospitallers is the equivalent of a priory in other orders. We normally regard all pre-Reformation British monasteries as notable. The article (though short) is well-sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.